Mansel v. Exodus Recovery CA2/2, B336779

Rose Mansel, on behalf of herself and her deceased husband’s estate, sued Exodus Recovery, Inc., Dr. Liliane Lebas, Kedren Acute Psychiatric Hospital, Dr. Gul Ebrahim, and Isaac Camarena after her mentally ill son Alonzo Mansel was discharged from psychiatric care and subsequently had a psychotic episode, injuring her and killing her husband.
The complaint alleged professional negligence, wrongful death, and other claims based on the defendants’ decision to discharge Alonzo despite his psychotic symptoms and homicidal ideations toward loved ones.
Exodus Recovery and Dr. Lebas demurred, arguing California Civil Code section 43.92 barred the claims because Alonzo had not made a specific threat against a particular, identifiable victim.
The trial court agreed, sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend, and dismissed the action against all defendants.
Mansel appealed the dismissal, arguing section 43.92 did not apply since Alonzo’s ideations about harming loved ones sufficed as a threat.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Application of Section 43.92	Mansel argued Alonzo's expressions about harming loved ones were sufficient as threats under the statute.	Exodus Recovery et al. contended no specific threat was made to an identifiable victim, as required by law.	The court agreed with Exodus: section 43.92 bars claims absent a specific threat to a reasonably identifiable victim.
Professional negligence/medical malpractice	Mansel claimed providers owed her (and her family) a duty of care in managing Alonzo’s condition.	Defendants argued no duty was owed to third parties except as permitted by section 43.92.	The court held no such duty existed absent a clear threat against an identified victim.
Dismissal without prejudice (Kedren respondents)	Mansel challenged the dismissal as error.	Kedren argued dismissal was warranted given section 43.92’s bar.	Court found no error; dismissal was proper.
Leave to amend	Mansel asked to amend her complaint during appeal.	Defendants said amendment would not cure the statutory defect.	Court declined leave to amend; no reasonable amendment could change result.

Calderon v. Glick, 131 Cal.App.4th 224 (psychotherapist does not owe a duty to third parties absent statutory exception)
Trear v. Sills, 69 Cal.App.4th 1341 (no duty on therapist to parent of patient)
Schwarz v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 226 Cal.App.3d 149 (duty of care directed at patient, not parent; harm to third parties does not create duty)
Mero v. Sadoff, 31 Cal.App.4th 1466 (duty of care in malpractice requires physician-patient relationship)
Hedlund v. Superior Court, 34 Cal.3d 695 (discussed historical duty expanded by Tarasoff, later limited by statute)
Bragg v. Valdez, 111 Cal.App.4th 421 (no duty to warn unless a specific threat against specific person is made)